Ontario is a step closer to a radical change in the way MPPs are elected to the Legislature.

Former judge George Thomson, who chairs the citizens' assembly on electoral reform, says the status quo will also be put to a vote.

By:Ian UrquhartQueen's Park Columnist, Published on Thu Feb 22 2007

Ontario is a step closer to a radical change in the way MPPs are elected to the Legislature.

The citizens' assembly on electoral reform, a randomly selected body of 103 ordinary Ontarians established by the provincial government, voted overwhelmingly last weekend for a system called "mixed member proportional," or MMP.

It is a system in use in Germany, New Zealand, Mexico, Venezuela and Bolivia and in the regional parliaments of Scotland and Wales.

The system can lead to permanent minority governments and a proliferation of fringe parties.

In a list of alternative systems put before the assembly last Sunday in a meeting at Osgoode Hall law school, MMP was the overwhelming choice, with the backing of 78 assembly members, versus eight for the "single transferable vote" (rejected by British Columbia voters in a referendum in 2004), six for the "parallel" system, three for pure "proportional representation," two for the "alternative vote" (also known as the "preferential ballot") and zero for the "two-round" system.

The status quo – our centuries-old system of members elected by a plurality in their individual constituencies – was not up for consideration, although it will be voted on by the assembly in the coming weeks.

But with last weekend's vote, MMP becomes the front-runner as the system to be recommended in the assembly's final report, due May 15.

And the government has pledged to put the assembly's recommendation to a referendum in conjunction with the provincial election on Oct. 10.

MMP is a hybrid that attempts to meld our existing system with pure proportional representation.

With proportional representation, members of the Legislature would be selected from party lists according to the percentage vote each party received during the election.

Under MMP, citizens would cast two votes – one for a local representative, another for the party of their choice.

The second ballot would then be used to allocate the remainder of the seats from party lists.

In the final analysis, the total number of seats for each party would roughly correspond to the percentage of the popular vote it obtained.

As no party in Ontario has gained more than 50 per cent of the vote in a provincial election since 1937, MMP would just about guarantee minority governments.

Many details still need to be worked out by the assembly, such as the overall number of seats in the Legislature, the ratio of locally elected members to those selected through proportionality, and the minimum threshold for awarding proportional seats.

There is also a possibility the assembly could junk MMP and pick another alternative to the status quo in the coming weeks, according to George Thomson, the former judge and senior civil servant who chairs the assembly. "They (the assembly) were not being asked what system they liked best," said Thomson in an interview yesterday. "They were being asked what system they wanted to work up first."

Still, the fact that MMP was the overwhelming choice of the assembly in the weekend vote suggests that its members are leaning heavily in that direction.

So, too, do the working principles adopted by the assembly, including: "the number of seats a party wins should more closely reflect its vote share;" "voters should be able to indicate their preferred party and candidate;" and "each member should represent a geographic area of the province."

This preference for MMP was confirmed by two members of the assembly, who spoke to the Star on the condition of anonymity.

As for the status quo, Thomson said it will still be put to a vote of the assembly near the end of the process – after the decision on the final form of the alternative system. In effect, there will be a duel between the status quo and the alternative.

But it seems unlikely the assembly would opt for the status quo after spending weeks working on the alternative.

The assembly's members – predominantly homemakers, students, self-employed and retired persons – have signalled in their thumbnail biographies they want to "make history," which they won't do by voting for the status quo. As well, they have spent several months intensely studying alternatives. The have held 41 public hearings across the province and have received 986 written submissions.

In the hearings and the submissions, the status quo – often referred to as the "first-past-the-post" system – was variously described as unfair, illegitimate, archaic, and adversarial.

The push for electoral reform has come from a wide variety of individuals and groups, with sometimes conflicting agendas.

Some believe a reformed system will reverse the decline in turnout as fewer votes will be "wasted." Others think it will ensure the election of more women and visible minorities.

Leftists want electoral reform as a vehicle for guaranteeing minority governments and, accordingly, no return to the policies of the Mike Harris regime.

Social conservatives see it as a way to get their issues – such as abortion and gay marriage – back on the floor of the Legislature (where there is currently an all-party consensus against revisiting these matters).

The assembly's recommendation will still have to clear the hurdle of a referendum.

And the governing Liberals – many of whom have strong misgivings about the process of electoral reform they set in motion – have established a 60 per cent threshold for approval of a proposal in the referendum.

But the 60 per cent hurdle may not be as high as it seems. B.C. set its threshold at the same level for its 2004 referendum, and the proposal fell just short with 57 per cent support.

More on thestar.com

We value respectful and thoughtful discussion. Readers are encouraged to flag comments that fail to meet the standards outlined in our
Community Code of Conduct.
For further information, including our legal guidelines, please see our full website
Terms and Conditions.